Trying to understand Python objects

Carl Banks pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Fri Nov 24 02:08:03 CET 2006


Aahz wrote:
> In article <mailman.564.1164158130.32031.python-list at python.org>,
> Ben Finney  <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >Typically, classes are created as a subclass of another class. The
> >top-level basic type in Python is 'object', so if your class doesn't
> >make sense deriving from anything else, derive from 'object'.
> >
> >    class Point(object):
> >        pass
> >
> >Defining a class with *no* superclass is not recommended. If you don't
> >yet understand the difference between the above style (called a
> >"new-style" class) and the style you presented, you should always
> >derive from a superclass ('object' or something more specific) until
> >you encounter a situation where that causes a problem.
>
> Side note: I disagree with the above advice, but it's Thanksgiving and I
> don't have enough room on the margin for the proof.  I think classic
> classes are just fine.

Absolutely.  We don't want newbies' feeble brains to explode.


Carl Banks




More information about the Python-list mailing list